Software, Training Key to Fending Off Employee Data Breaches
In the battle against intentional and accidental data breaches by workers, security software and employee training measures can go a long way.
March 29, 2019 at 11:15 AM
4 minute read
A data breach isn't always the work of a high-tech malware hack. Sometimes it can stem from unintentional or malicious act of an employee, especially if that employee believes corporate data belongs to them.
It's not a far-fetched scenario, according to “Insider Data Breach,” a survey of 4,000 U.S.- and U.K.-based employees commissioned by Egress Software Technologies and conducted by Opinion Matters. The survey found that 29 percent of respondents believed they owned company data.
To combat that misconception and ensure company data isn't misused by employees, lawyers recommend implementing training and technology that limits mishandling of data on employee- and company-owned devices.
Before deploying any software safeguards or employee guidelines, an organization must assess what information is critical to the company. Next, policies should be implemented and practiced that focus on securing sensitive data against inter-company and third-party breaches.
However, with more employees working from their personal devices, including lawyers, company data is being shared on non-company devices. Still, organizations can ensure data is being used properly.
“The best practice is to let you use your own device but not have actual company information stored on that device,” said Danielle Vanderzanden, a shareholder at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart and co-chair of Ogletree's data privacy practice group. “The device is just a method to accessing the company's server and repositories through multi-factor authentication.”
Along with software that protects company data, there should be specified guidelines in place for the use of personal devices at work.
“Before employers allow employees to use their personal devices for work, the employer should implement a dual use program or bring-your-own-device program that establishes very specific rules for participation in the program,” said Philip Gordon, a Littler Mendelson shareholder and privacy and background checks practice group co-chair.
He added it's important to have a policy for employees signing confidential or nondisclosure agreements concerning devices. “The agreements can provide an opportunity for the organization to remind employees about their obligations as data stewards,” he said. “And perhaps more important, if employees leave and take sensitive data with them, the employer has an easy basis for going to court and requesting relief.”
While employee guidelines provide written acknowledgment of a work procedure, software installed on a personal devices can also limit how an employee interacts with company data remotely—with consent, of course.
“It's very important to ensure the employer retains the right to remotely remove that company data from that device in the event the employer and employee part ways,” Vanderzanden said.
Gordon noted, however, that it's essential for an employer to obtain prior authorization to remotely delete data from a personal device. “It's unlawful for an employer to wipe information from an employee's phone without their consent.”
Safeguards against employers' accidental data breaches on company computers also include technical controls. After all, the Egress-commissioned survey reported 45 percent of employees who accidentally shared information sent it to the wrong person.
“[Companies can] carefully identify who by job category is authorized to access particular types of data and what data can they access and then using technical controls like access lists,” Gordon said. “For example, individuals in payroll may need access to all payroll-related data, but they don't need access to all HR data.”
Such a limitation may reduce the probability of an employee breaching data, but it isn't perfect. “There's always going to be an issue,” said Rebecca Rakoski, managing partner at XPAN Law Group. “Being secure is a fallacy: There is no being secure. What you want to be is prepared.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Perkins Coie Boasts Diverse Partner Class
- 2NY Judge Indefinitely Delays Sentencing in Trump Hush Money Case
- 3US Supreme Court Tries to Define a 'Crime of Violence'
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Think About Why You Want the Role, Because It Is Not an Easy Job,' Says Aaron Rubin of Morrison Foerster
- 5People in the News—Nov. 22, 2024—Marshall Dennehey, Buchanan Ingersoll
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250